On January 04 2013 04:34 MiyaviTeddy wrote: Since my favourite RTS is SC, WC3 and Dune 2000, is Civ 5 is worth getting? what about G&K?. Its on sale right now and I want to know if its better to play multiplayer on civ 5 alone or G&K (if there is multiplayer).
1. it's not an rts 2. i'm pretty sure everyone who plays multiplayer is already on the expansion.
from your post i don't think you quite know what civ 5 is about, it's a turn-based strategy game. requires pretty much a completely different mindset + playstyle than sc2, wc3 and dune. go watch a couple of youtube videos such as this:
although the video discusses higher level concepts and is being played on the highest difficulty setting, you should get a better idea of how the game is actually played.
On January 04 2013 04:34 MiyaviTeddy wrote: Since my favourite RTS is SC, WC3 and Dune 2000, is Civ 5 is worth getting? what about G&K?. Its on sale right now and I want to know if its better to play multiplayer on civ 5 alone or G&K (if there is multiplayer).
1. it's not an rts 2. i'm pretty sure everyone who plays multiplayer is already on the expansion.
from your post i don't think you quite know what civ 5 is about, it's a turn-based strategy game. requires pretty much a completely different mindset + playstyle than sc2, wc3 and dune. go watch a couple of youtube videos such as this:
although the video discusses higher level concepts and is being played on the highest difficulty setting, you should get a better idea of how the game is actually played.
is it more akin to Advance Wars?
I was considering getting Civ, I wanted to get into it but I wasn't sure. I don't mind if its not an RTS.
On January 04 2013 04:34 MiyaviTeddy wrote: Since my favourite RTS is SC, WC3 and Dune 2000, is Civ 5 is worth getting? what about G&K?. Its on sale right now and I want to know if its better to play multiplayer on civ 5 alone or G&K (if there is multiplayer).
1. it's not an rts 2. i'm pretty sure everyone who plays multiplayer is already on the expansion.
from your post i don't think you quite know what civ 5 is about, it's a turn-based strategy game. requires pretty much a completely different mindset + playstyle than sc2, wc3 and dune. go watch a couple of youtube videos such as this:
although the video discusses higher level concepts and is being played on the highest difficulty setting, you should get a better idea of how the game is actually played.
is it more akin to Advance Wars?
I was considering getting Civ, I wanted to get into it but I wasn't sure. I don't mind if its not an RTS.
sure, combat is kind of like advance wars. each unit gets one attack per turn and a limited amount of moves, just like any turn-based RPG.
in advance wars you get cash from capturing buildings and they generate revenue for you. in civ, you're building an empire, so to speak, so you're founding cities from which you crank out units and buildings and wonders and whatnot.
civ and other similar games are part of a genre called 4X strategy.
civ 5 and g&k are about $20 combined on steam, i think, right now. the civ series is a great series, i like the building-an-empire part aspect most of civ, but different people find different ways to enjoy the game.
That would be the day I stop buying new civ games. And not just me. It would really be a stupid decision. Though I could see them add an optional real-time mode.
I got Civ 5 GOTY + G&K for $15 awhile ago from a getgamesgo deal. It was my first Civ game and I will say it is too addicting... once you start it's so difficult to stop (until you end the game).
On January 04 2013 08:53 ain wrote: That would be the day I stop buying new civ games. And not just me. It would really be a stupid decision. Though I could see them add an optional real-time mode.
Yea that would ruin it for me forever also. Although I would not be opposed to multiple game modes if turn based was still an option and it was balanced around turn based. Might make multiplayer more fun.
On January 04 2013 07:54 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Let's be honest it is only a matter of time before Civ series is no longer a TBS game.
On January 04 2013 08:42 Teejing wrote: Yea leets hope the next civ is in real time with an option to pause the game [ at least in singleplayer ]
On January 04 2013 08:53 ain wrote: That would be the day I stop buying new civ games. And not just me. It would really be a stupid decision. Though I could see them add an optional real-time mode.
hehe you guys should all play Civilization UMS maps in bw (Civilization World Legacy in particular, or the Diplo maps!). It's quite the interesting experience. i do miss them and i personally would love an RTS civ game.
I don't really see the only largely successful epic TBS game going RTS where it faces so much damn competition. I mean, what does Civ really compete with? Elemental? Fallen Enchantress? Other 2K games? Granted I wasn't following the TBS scene that keenly for the past few years, but the Civ series is the only big player on the field as far as I am aware.
Anyway, I find ciV an amazing game, it fully rivals cIV in its fun and even complexity. The decisions you make are different which is why so many people had problems switching to ciV (also because it wasn't very good before GaK). The real difference in fun between ciV and other Civ games is the complexity of warfare influenced by both geography and technology.
In cIV military plan is about as simple as drawing the shortest lines between your target's cities, with any real choice only when the enemy empire is split in several parts OR you are using cavalry+spy forces for conquest (and really, who does that below Immortal difficulty). In ciV because of no Stacks of Doom you have to devise crazy military plans with strangest of positionings dependant on both geography and avaliable technologies, that are necessarily influenced by your economic needs. And it is this tactical depth that really completes this game in its fun and awesomeness.
And the empire-building concepts and decisions are still there, they never went away and the decisions are just as complex as they were in cIV. In my opinion, ciV is one of the best TBS ever made and certainly worth a try.
All Paradox has to do is develop a version of Civ or try a Call to Power type of game for the Civ series to be in danger of losing hardcore and veterans due to lack of complexity(I find comparing Civ IV and V and saying they share the same micro gameplay absurd).
Civ IV BtS was the height of the series IMO it is insane they stopped updating and actually took a step backwards with V in terms of features etc.
On January 04 2013 04:34 MiyaviTeddy wrote: Since my favourite RTS is SC, WC3 and Dune 2000, is Civ 5 is worth getting? what about G&K?. Its on sale right now and I want to know if its better to play multiplayer on civ 5 alone or G&K (if there is multiplayer).
1. it's not an rts 2. i'm pretty sure everyone who plays multiplayer is already on the expansion.
from your post i don't think you quite know what civ 5 is about, it's a turn-based strategy game. requires pretty much a completely different mindset + playstyle than sc2, wc3 and dune. go watch a couple of youtube videos such as this:
although the video discusses higher level concepts and is being played on the highest difficulty setting, you should get a better idea of how the game is actually played.
is it more akin to Advance Wars?
I was considering getting Civ, I wanted to get into it but I wasn't sure. I don't mind if its not an RTS.
The combat is kind of like Advance Wars (except it's played on a hex grid, which makes for a world of difference), but combat isn't the primary focus of Civ. If anything, combat is used as a last resort when fighting over territory, or when someone is far ahead of you in victory conditions. Having too large a standing army causes economic strain and is production time that could have been spent elsewhere.
It's an amazing strategy game, and I put something like 50 hours in the first week I got it. Again, though, the combat isn't the primary focus, and it isn't mechanics/APM based like any good RTS is.
What the game for me is about is achieving your end goal through whatever diverse set of actions and means is presented to you and for me ciV achieves that by the diversity of end goals and the random factors that can lead you to change or modify them and by the interesting actions and means provided. And for me the introduction of tactical combat justifies and to some extent even requires small (though in my opinion not even significant) simplification of empire-building mechanics.
And really, what complex and interesting micromanagement did you have in BtS? After way more than 200 hours played nothing but whip overflow comes to mind. cIV comes with it's own slew of interesting micromanagement decisions, like purposeful starvation for religion or worker improvement choices due to food intake being calculated before production or commerce intake.
Or maybe I am just not as hardcore as I previously thought I was. :D
It's also possible that everything I wrote here doesn't make a lick of sense outside of my head. Hard to tell atm. l0l
Standard does have some wacky strength progression though. It seems like right when you're getting to Swordsmen (which are relatively hard to get due to costing a resource), by the time you produce a couple of Swordsmen you'll have teched up to Pikemen already. Pikemen tend to last quite a while though. I think Pikemen are arguably too strong, but that's probably done to give players without easy access to Iron some defense against Swordsmen who would otherwise dominate the early game.
EPT
